1. Bush weapons inspector David Kay says there is no evidence. David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free."
2. The 9/11 Commission says there is no evidence. The staff report of the 9/11 commission concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that Hussein and al-Qaeda were collaborating. According to the commission, Bin Laden was hostile to Hussein's secular government and Hussein never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or supplies.
3. Colin Powell says there is no evidence. In January, Colin Powell said there was no "concrete evidence" of a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda.
4. The U.N. says there is no evidence. Michael Chandler, The chairman of the Security Council group monitoring sanctions against al-Qaeda said there was "no evidence of a link between the terrorist organization and the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein."
Oh Peach. Would you please educate the nice young man. I would, but my main box, where that information is stored, blew a power supply last week, and I haven't repaired it yet.
1. Bush weapons inspector David Kay says there is no evidence. David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free." A willful lie or ignorance?
From the report:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
2. The 9/11 Commission says there is no evidence. The staff report of the 9/11 commission concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that Hussein and al-Qaeda were collaborating. According to the commission, Bin Laden was hostile to Hussein's secular government and Hussein never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or supplies.
A willful lie or ignorance?
The 9/11 Commission made a finding that there was no evidence that Iraq collaborated in 9/11. They also stated that their did not "appear" to be a concrete connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq on attacks on the United States. But despite that statement the report is replete with contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and it is known that bin LAden, like Nidal and Abbas was offered sancturay in Iraq. So much for the secular/jihadist bs. Did you read the report or did you just go see Michael Moores pack of lies?
3. Colin Powell says there is no evidence. In January, Colin Powell said there was no "concrete evidence" of a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda.
Colin Powell is contradicted by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee.
4. The U.N. says there is no evidence. Michael Chandler, The chairman of the Security Council group monitoring sanctions against al-Qaeda said there was "no evidence of a link between the terrorist organization and the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein."
I don't comment on the UN morons.
Thanks for answering... But .... YOU IGNORE THE EVIDENCE I CITE FROM THE 9/11 COMMISION REPORT ... to say "no evidence". it's breathtaking in its head-in-the-sand approach.
"1. Bush weapons inspector David Kay says there is no evidence. "
Kay was looking for WMD, not terror connections. David Kay was *not* a CIA interrogator of AQ. But my question is more specific.
I gave a specific manifest, list of meetings, contacts, and suggested/sourced collaborations. You cant simply say "no evidence" when the evidence is right there! You have to either say "I believe it" or "I dont believe it".
Did Kay say that the offer by Hussein to give Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq not take place? Or was he just ignorant of that data? Or is he claiming that such meetings and such an offer do not constitute a 'link'? And if not, what does 'link' mean then?
"2. The 9/11 Commission says there is no evidence."
No evidence of *what*? they gave *plenty* of evidence pg 61, 66, 128, and more in the footnotes ...
your answer is a 'head in the sands' ignoring of it is an implicit denial of the meetings and contacts that the 9/11 commission report states took place. High level meetings in 1992, 1994-1995, 1996, 1998. And their common interest in setting up Ansar Al-Islam.
The 9/11 Commission report many high-level meetings, like ...
p61: "With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995."
RP: "The staff report of the 9/11 commission concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that Hussein and al-Qaeda were collaborating."
Wrong!
The direct quote on page 66 of the report is more narrow - no evidence of an "operational collaborative relationship" according to them.
RP: "According to the commission, Bin Laden was hostile to Hussein's secular government and Hussein never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or supplies."
Wrong! Bin Laden was *not* hostile to the Iraq Govt. Read his 1998 Fatwa. Look at the fact that Bin Laden himself met with Iraqi intelligence leaders in 1994, 1995 and 1998.
In his March 1998 Fatwa, Bin Laden allied himself with Saddam's Iraqi regime in the following way:
"On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden published his "Kill the Americans" fatwa. An intriguing feature of this fatwa was its prominent mention of Iraq, not just once, but four times. Analysts at the CIA and elsewhere have long propounded the theory that secular Saddam and religious Osama would not have wanted to work together. But Saddam's secular style seemed to bother bin Laden not a whit.
His fatwa presented three basic complaints. Mainly, he deplored the infidel presence in Saudi Arabia (i.e., the U.S. troops stationed there during and after the Gulf War). He also cited grievances about Jerusalem, while not even bothering to mention the Palestinians by name. The rest of his attention, bin Laden devoted to Iraq and "the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" as well as "the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance" and--here is the specific reference to U.S.-led sanctions--"the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war." Two paragraphs later, bin Laden picked up this theme again, calling Iraq the "strongest neighboring Arab state" of Saudi Arabia, and then citing Iraq, yet again, as first on a list of four states threatened by America ..."
See:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/436zhuju.asp
Now as for your 'Hussein didnt respond', there is sources who say Hussein did respond to these requests:
p61: "With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995. Bin Laden is said to ask for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.(55)"
Okay, but in the footnotes, as I said: "they cite CIA memoranda with sources that did claim requests were fulfilled, in particular training requests. The report was that an Iraqi military bomb-making expert and the chief of Iraq's intelligence services met with Bin Laden and trained his group on bomb making techniques in 1996. This piece of intelligence was passed to the US in 1996. "
Now, you write "no evidence" as a reply to a post I made that contained the evidence! We may argue with whether or not this particular piece of evidence actually rings true (I think it does, you might think it does not), yet this was sourced evidence. It was part of the reason that:
"An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999."
Again, say whether or not this is actually true or not, but dont fall on the patently false "no evidence" myth.
RP: "3. Colin Powell says there is no evidence. In January, Colin Powell said there was no "concrete evidence" of a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda."
Wrong again! Please get the full context quote - that was actually an example of media-bias spin trying to get Powell to be more definitive than he was ... no 'smoking gun' does *not* imply that (a) there's not circumstantial evidence and (b) that it didnt exist.
Did Colin Powell say that the offer by Hussein to give Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq not take place? Or was he just ignorant of that data? Or is he claiming that such meetings and such an offer do not constitute a 'link'? And if not, what does 'link' mean then?
"4. The U.N. says there is no evidence." So?
Again... Are they saying the following didnt happen or that stuff like this doesnt 'count':
"Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995."
